Google Cast is now built-in to Chrome - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.googleblog.com/2016/08/google-cast-is-now-built-in-to-chrome.html <comment><USER2> I'm still really disappointed that the Cast protocol is effectively closed, and Google only supports casting from Chrome, Android, and iOS.

I think Google is really shooting themselves in the foot regarding adoption. I'd love to have a command-line Cast client for Linux, integration into pulseaudio, a Firefox Cast extension, a native UI (non-browser) video player, etc. Sure, some people have reverse-engineered the newer protocol, but I've never gotten any of the unofficial clients to work reliably (and some just flat-out don't work at all).

<comment><USER3> Google's not shooting themselves in the foot because:

\- Google Cast is not a general-purpose streaming protocol, even though it is designed to mimic that UX to a casual user

\- Cast provides some features like 'ad breaks' [1] that are valuable to content providers and aggregators which you wouldn't find in a general-purpose streaming protocol, making it more likely that those who want these features will make their streaming app Cast-compatible

\- The Cast SDK comes with a TOS [2] that's a rather enlightening read

\- You have to register your application with Google if you're developing a Cast sender [3], or if you're developing a Cast receiver and don't want to use their Default Receiver [4] (presumably, because you're building your own).

Google's building an ecosystem here. This isn't Miracast or WiDi or even AirPlay, although kudos to them for making everyone think so.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/ads](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/ads)

[2] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/terms](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/terms)

[3] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender#setup](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender#setup)

[4] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/receiver_apps#choose...](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/receiver_apps#choose- a-receiver)

<comment><USER4> Isn't AirPlay pretty much analogous? Only available on a single brand of devices with an effectively DRM protected closed protocol?

<comment><USER3> I don't quite think so. AirPlay is a proprietary Miracast, long before Miracast existed. Although it's proprietary and the payload is protected with DRM, Apple uses it as an encrypted tunnel between approved (and first-party) devices.

Meanwhile, Google Cast is a media-streaming negotiation, handoff and control protocol marketed as a wireless streaming solution. It's not so much about packets on the wire as control commands and metadata. That, I feel, is a significant difference.

<comment><USER5> You can cast your desktop using Chrome cast. I'm pretty sure that's more than negotiation, handoff and control.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that's actually part of the Cast protocol. Google just built a desktop streaming app on top of the Cast protocol, and bundled it with the client.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There was formerly a Google-made addon for this. Now it's integrated into Chrome. There are two features here:

\- Chrome can stream its renderer output to a 'Google Cast'-supporting stream sink, like a Chromecast. This option is buried in the hamburger menu.

\- websites can be coded against a JS library that's implemented by Chrome [1][2]. Then the 'stream to...' menu is shown as the 'cast' icon near the address bar.

[1] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/reference/chrome/](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/reference/chrome/)

[2] [https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender](https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/chrome_sender)

</comment><comment><USER7> I love Chromecasts and brining Google Cast into Chrome made me quite happy since the integration with Hangouts (you can cast a tab into a hangout if the meeting is part of your Google Calendar) is terrific.

However as someone who helps out with the company's network, they are infuriating:

\- They ignore the DHCP given DNS Servers instead using Google's. I'm sure the same is true for NTP though I haven't bothered testing that.

\- They use mDNS and DNS-SD but not DNS-SD Wide Area Discovery. This makes subnetting more difficult and increases broadcast traffic quite a bit.

\- Not a complaint, more a wish, but a PoE version of the Ethernet adapter would be immensely helpful.

<comment><USER8> OT: If someone wanted to block connections to Google's DNS servers, can it be done reliably? Is there a known, static range?

AFAIK Android also uses Google's DNS servers, and it's hard coded into the OS, and the client pings the server before any software firewall can load at boot. (Allow me to reemphasize: _AFAIK_ ; if someone knows more I'd appreciate it.)

<comment><USER9> I don't know how the mobile networks configure the dns, but on WiFi android uses whatever dns server is advertised via dhcp.

<comment><USER4> Android yes, Chromecast no. It's hardcoded to defeat DNS-level location spoofing for Netflix and similar services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Recently I moved house. I had to wait 6 weeks for the internet to be connected (first world problem). While I was waiting for the connection I inevitably tried to fall back on local content and discovered, much to my discontent, that my Chromecast wouldn't work at all without internet, even when I was trying to play local content.

I've been less happy with it ever since.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looking forward to some standardization/interop coming out of this. There's _Presentation API[1],_ which spec's a web API, but that still leaves open the question of coordination between a controller (browser) and display. Chrome's working on it[2], and I'd guess would target Cast, so web pages might be able to request their own casting, but it doesn't seem like anything other browsers could compete/cooperate openly with atm.

[1] [https://www.w3.org/TR/presentation- api/](https://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/)

[2] [https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component...](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Blink%3EPresentationAPI)

</comment><comment><USER12> Assuming they drop support for the Chromecast add-on, doesn't this effectively eliminate the ability for other browsers that can use chrome extensions to cast to a Chromecast? (e.g., Opera, Vivaldi, maybe Chromium)?

<comment><USER13> That is only going to be a problem if they do not upstream the changes to Chromium.

<comment><USER14> That's actually a very important question. Is Google opening up casting in the widest sense to 3rd party clients? I know there was some push in this direction when it was launched ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_Launch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_and_Launch) ) but I seem to recall hearing that there is now more to Google Cast than DIAL. Does anyone know how interoperable this all is?

<comment><USER15> DIAL/SSDP is not used anymore (except for legacy apps, like the Youtube one). Now, this is mDNS (good) and proprietary protobuf protocol. There is no documentation for this but several people have reversed-engineered the stuff from the source code of Chromium and the extension to get third-party client (third-party Chromecast is not possible since there is a signature mechanism for clients to check). I have done such an implementation here: [https://github.com/vincentbernat/nodecastor](https://github.com/vincentbernat/nodecastor) (but not really maintained).

<comment><USER14> That's troubling. Has anyone got any sense about whether interoperability is merely neglected or whether there's strategic reasons for its abandonment (either from Google itself or via pressure from partners with 'premium content')

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looking at WireShark last night Google Cast was reaching out to Google every 30 seconds. I narrowed it down to my web browser, removing it from the toolbar stopped it.

<comment><USER14> Assuming some of the logic for determining whether a page is castable (or what options to offer) reside server-side then I can imaginez why this might be necessary. However it also might be poor coding.

Was it onerous in terms of resources - or was there any hint of nefarious behaviour? My suspicion is many people will assume the latter despite the rather neutral tone of your post. Therefore I'd be interested to hear more detail.

<comment><USER16> I have been interested in the Hacking Team leak of spyware and hacking tools. I found in the documentation taken from the hacking team website that when you run Wireshark their spyware looks for that and won't install. I have heard of wireshark before but never tried it, once I had it I saw that google chromecast going on it is like a beacon telling Google my ip address over and over again. Seemed like a bad thing. Maybe not all totally logical, why bother, but being logical all of the time is boring!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For anyone who hasn't seen it, check out the "peerflix" project on github. It's an amazing way to stream torrents, and you can easily cast them from chrome.

Basically you just do:

        peerflix 'magnetUrl'

And then navigate to [http://localhost:8888](http://localhost:8888) and cast the tab.

Unfortunately it only works with MP4. There may be some workarounds with an ffmpeg command in the middle, but I haven't experimented with it much.

<comment><USER18> Put.io will do this too and even convert to mp4 for you, but it costs $9/mo.

<comment><USER19> Put.io is amazing and worth the money

<comment><USER18> Oh for sure - it's definitely the best execution of cloud torrenting that I've seen to date.

I wish they'd do a blog post or two about how they handle their file structure.

<comment><USER20> Can't be much, can it?

They store everything on some leaseweb disks. They use transmission behind the scenes.

Too bad it's never that simple.

<comment><USER18> But maybe they use md5 checksums to only store one copy of the same file for thousands of users. Or maybe that's violating some legal shield they have within their TOS.

Either way their MP4 conversion is waaaay too fast for some of the more popular files, and those aren't a part of the torrents.

<comment><USER20> I'm sure they check against the checksums when providing you a file that already exists. Doesn't make sense to waste bandwidth (hey there, Kim)

I think in their FAQ they mention that they have some dedicated nodes that do the MP4 conversion. I completely agree with you though, the conversion is unreal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice job, thank you! Now... how can I disable it? Next time I'm on a public wifi network, this is going to be sending out probes for Chromecast devices, and it's only a matter of time before someone finds an exploit.

<comment><USER22> > only a matter of time before someone finds an exploit.

Chrome is looking ripe for exploitation. IIRC the default install includes an mDNS responder. Check out the guy who has every Chrome instance on his network crash at the same time: [https://redd.it/4xej0p](https://redd.it/4xej0p)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Few months ago, I bought a Nexus 5x assuming that it will support Miracast (like Nexus 5 did). I was very disappointed to know that Google dropped support for Miracast. re-enabling Miracast support was just a matter of changing a line in a config file. However that required rooting the device.

Dropping support for standard protocols and forcing users to use their proprietary stuff? what happened to their corporate moto "Don't be evil".

<comment><USER11> Really appreciate that Intel's been working on a Miracast receiver for Linux. Been super sad that Linux has been so far behind on the Miracast & Wifi-p2p fronts.

[https://01.org/wds](https://01.org/wds)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Chromecast if left on (using the included power adapter) will use about 14gig of bandwidth downloading images for its background that you can not turn off. As someone on a metered MiFi that's a no go.

<comment><USER25> Seriously?

That really says something about the people who developed and tested these... (Something along the lines of "Hey, maybe you should try getting out of the Google campus/dorms occasionally, possibly even out of the Bay Area, and see how the world works for non-Google employees…")

Chromecast - only $35![1]

smallprint [1] requires unlimited highspeed broadband. May use several times it's purchase price in bandwidth per month if your employer doesn't provide free Google Fibre to your home.

<comment><USER26> I've posted at least once before about this. Google, Microsoft and a lot of other companies really don't think about "low" bandwidth (<20 megabit downstream) or situations where you're not always connected.

Props to Facebook for having "2G" day. I hope it still happens.

* Dropbox is meant to have a LAN sync but fails back quickly to syncing from their servers. There's no way to debug why it isn't using other hosts on your LAN

* OneDrive has no LAN sync at all

* There's no way to debug Windows 10's LAN update sharing if it fails.

* Windows 10 will default to uploading partial updates to other users on the Internet (bittorrent style)

* Windows 10 will let you set a Wifi connection as "metered" and actually behave quite well (deferring updates, driver downloads and OneDrive data), but there's no way to set Ethernet networks as metered, outside of a registry hack.

* Google not supporting SD cards in the Nexus line (yes, I know about the performance issues, I own several >$50 SD cards that are trash). Mobile data is expensive.

* It took Google until 2016 to offer offline caching of YouTube videos, and even then you have to pay them for the privilege

* Microsoft's newer .NET and Powershell stuff download >50 megabytes of dependencies from NuGet.org and MyGet.org. Offline caching is possible, but maybe not on Linux

<comment><USER25> Heh - it's quite a struggle for me to get 20megabits at my place. I've got reasonably affordable 12-14mbits of ADSL2 (with unimited traffic) for $70/month, but I can't get NBN where I live, there's no Telstra or Optus cable (our local shared 100mbit down HFC option which tops out a maybe 3mbits up) in my building complex, so the only "high speed" options are LTE (a several dollars per Gigabyte) or _maybe_ NBN fixed wireless (tops out at 50mbit).

Lucky Australia is such a beautiful country, eh?

<comment><USER26> I feel guilty every time I mention that I'm on the NBN - the real one. The fibre terminates into a NBNco branded box and as long as I've got a device that speaks PPPoE I'm online.

It doesn't solve all problems - there's massive congestion on Internode where I am that limits me to 20 megabits during the day, and TPG have messed up the routes to everywhere (Xbox Live gets <2 megabit, but Steam works fine).

<comment><USER25> So I just checked again - the brand new 200 apartment building up the end of my street is wired for NBN, pretty much all of the rest of my suburb isn't even in the planning stage still.

(I bet I could get a bunch of wifi signals from that new apartment block with my 24db gain 2.4GHz yagi...)

<comment><USER26> Make a friend on a higher level apartment and set up a Ubiquiti point-to-point network.

<comment><USER25> Or [https://www.aircrack- ng.org/doku.php?id=cracking_wpa](https://www.aircrack- ng.org/doku.php?id=cracking_wpa)

(Who me? _Never!_)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Not sure how related this is, but my parents have a one or two year old Samsung "Smart" HDTV. It doesn't have Chromecast built in, but it does have Youtube, Netflix, and a few other "apps".

I thought it was really cool one time when I was visiting during a SpaceX launch and experimental sea landing because I was able to swap from watching live via Youtube on my laptop to casting it to their HDTV. That was just by pressing the cast button and selecting their TV, which was automatically in the list without me doing anything.

It's awesome that Google's made this more convenient and I think it'll be something useful for a lot of people.

<comment><USER28> Those are YouTube-specific hacks, as I understand it. My Oppo Blu-Ray player also shows up as a cast-to destination in the YouTube application, but it doesn't show up anywhere else that has the casting ability.

<comment><USER29> I believe that this is the DIAL ([http://www.dial- multiscreen.org/](http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/)) protocol. I know Netflix and YouTube use it, as well as I presume others. Personally I don't think it is as cool as Google Cast as it requires an app/server installed on the target, where as Cast can open any website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30>
      "people have casted more than 38 million times from
       Chrome, watching and listening to more than 50 million
       hours of content."

So Google is monitoring your watching habits. What other information do they collect as part of this? Are these details documented in a privacy policy somewhere?

The setting chrome://flags/#disable-cast-streaming-hw-encoding only appears to toggle hardware encoding or not. Can it be disabled altogether?

<comment><USER31> There is a "Automatically send usage statistics and crash reports to Google" checkbox right in the settings. It even asks you during the install. Just uncheck the box to disable.

They also recorded this data as part of the Chrome extension, not natively. If you want to see more about the native metrics Chrome sends to Google, check out "chrome://histograms/"

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > and partnered with other manufacturers to make Cast-enabled TVs and > speakers.

WTF? Just publish the damn API already.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wish I could easily cast from Firefox or another privacy-respecting browser

<comment><USER34> There should be a campaign to call Chrome "Google Browser" to make it clear just how tight the connection is. A lot of more-tech people would have a slightly harder time saying they use GBrowse than Chrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Since this has happened my (gen 1) chromecast experience has gone almost totally to crap.

The built in functionality is supposed to be smart about down scaling for wifi speed, and thus has removed all options to do it manually; unfortunately it utterly fails (I believe because wifi speed is fine but the bitrate is too high for the hardware).

Lots of people don't like this update. [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromecast/5IG1...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/chromecast/5IG1ClAapLc/3pCqFStfEAAJ)

Streaming from my android is also much worse, with high bitrate streams that I used to consume regularly no longer working at all (e.g <1 fps).

I have been extremely happy with my chromecast until the last few months, and it honestly has become something I really dislike now.

</comment><comment><USER36> Any chance for "reverse cast"? I would love to be able to cast from supported apps in my phone to a tab in my browser.

<comment><USER37> Vysor is pretty much that.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vysor/gidgenkbbabo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vysor/gidgenkbbabolejbgbpnhbimgjbffefm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> If this means it's in the Chromium source tree, I'm very happy. Then there is an open source Google Cast client maintained by Google proper.

And it looks like that's exactly what they've done. [https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/media/cast/?q=cast&sq=p...](https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/media/cast/?q=cast&sq=package:chromium)

No more needing to guess how to implement non-deprecated versions of the API when integrating with other players.

<comment><USER15> This part is here since quite some time (since the introduction of the "new" protocol, two years ago). It is not the complete picture since it's only the low-level view (mDNS and protobuf). It's not sufficient to build a client since you still have to figure out the content of the messages. The gap is the extension that was provided until now (as a minified JS).

<comment><USER38> Ahh; that explains why performance wasn't awful all this time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> So now its called Google Cast, not Chromecast?

<comment><USER40> Google Cast is the technology, Chromecast is the device. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

<comment><USER41> At first, it was all Chromecast.

The API was even called the Chromecast API.

They changed it to Google Cast last March [0].

[0] [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/143386/20160323/google- reb...](http://www.techtimes.com/articles/143386/20160323/google-rebrands- chromecast-as-google-cast-heres-the-reason-for-the-name-change.htm)

<comment><USER42> The person said the device was still called Chromecast.

[https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/chromecast/](https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/chromecast/)

[https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/chromecast/tv/#?discover](https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/chromecast/tv/#?discover)

Google is still branding the device as Chromecast and still heavily using the term in the marketing for the actual device.

Also, other companies make Google Cast supported hardware, such as the NVidia Shield.

[https://shield.nvidia.com/blog/what-is-googlecast- chromecast](https://shield.nvidia.com/blog/what-is-googlecast-chromecast)

<comment><USER41> I understood that.

I was just clarifying for obilgic by explaining that he wasn't mistaken until more recently when Google rebranded the API.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> All in an effort to reduce its memory footprint...

<comment><USER44> It's not all about memory footprint; it's sometimes about just working for the grandmother who buys a $35 Chromecast from Best Buy.

<comment><USER45> And sometimes it's not all about that either, but about vendor lock-in.

<comment><USER44> Sometimes "making it just work" and "avoiding vendor lock-in" are incompatible. Plus, it's literally called "Chromecast."

<comment><USER29> The device itself runs chrome. So I don't think of the sender as the influence in the name. Plus chrome has a good mind-share which helps marketing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> " In the past month alone, people have casted more than 38 million times from Chrome, watching and listening to more than 50 million hours of content."

Apologies for the stupid question, but how exactly does Google know this? Is there some "send statistics home" function in the browser?

<comment><USER47> Yes it's one of the first things it asks you when you install it

[https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/96817?hl=en- GB](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/96817?hl=en-GB)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> And yet, despite Google making a strong play for the education and corporate markets, Chromecast still doesn't work on enterprise wireless networks, effectively cutting out any use in those spaces.

<comment><USER49> For this reason I've been thinking about flashing mine with eureka-rom [1]

Anybody try this out yet?

[1] [http://forum.xda-developers.com/android-tv/chromecast/rom- fl...](http://forum.xda-developers.com/android-tv/chromecast/rom-flashcast- autoroot-t3270332)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I hope Amazon FireTV supports this soon, or supplies a client. I've already got several of these sticks, and I'd love to be able to cast a tab up from somewhere on my network.

</comment><comment><USER51> It seems like Cast would be an inferior way to stream HD content to a TV for many users. If the source host is wifi-connected, you're tripling the amount of traffic that's passed through your access points: once from the content source (e.g. Netflix) to the laptop via the AP, then presumably from the laptop to the AP and back out to the Chromecast device.

<comment><USER52> That's not how it's done. That's a complete fallback.

For Netflix what happens is your browser tells the cast device what URL to go to to play the content. Your browser does not need to steam the video to the cast device. It can fall back to that so you can cast anything, however.

<comment><USER53> This is true but there are a couple caveats, one being the device playing the content has to already be authenticated properly.

You cannot simply go near a Cast-enabled device and start playing your stuff, unless I am mistaken. If that is the functionality then that would be terrifying as I would be handing my credentials to this Cast-enabled device.

<comment><USER54> Actually this is how the chromecast works. You never interact with the chromecast directly to configure your Netflix account for example. I assume (hope) they send a URL to the movie it should play with a one-time token to access the movie source.

<comment><USER53> It is inevitable that plaintext username/password will be used. This is why I am terrified.

<comment><USER55> Most likely it isn't a username/password but an authenticated URL... [https://foo.bar.netflix.com/(UUID-OR- SIMILAR)](https://foo.bar.netflix.com/\(UUID-OR-SIMILAR\)) where that is resolved to a resource, and the user authentication is valid for X hours from start...

There's no need for a plain username+password to be used... it's just an authentication token as the resource or part of the url.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> remembering my wtf from debugging phantom console errors:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24490323/google-chrome- ca...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24490323/google-chrome-cast-sender- error-if-chrome-cast-extension-is-not-installed-or-usi)

</comment><comment><USER57> It appears that Google will eliminate Chrome "packaged apps" in the next year; do I understand these to be locally installed apps? (I don't know Chrome). All apps after that must be on (a service?) the web. What could be the reason behind this?

<comment><USER58> Chrome is deprecating Chrome Web Apps in favor of native Web Apps. Essentially it's a push towards a more open web now that the APIs have caught up. It really has nothing to do with services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Since Google Cast has been open-sourced (upstreamed to Chromium), does this make it the de-facto alternative to Miracast? My Roku supports screen mirroring, but the fact that apps and companies are more keen on supporting ChromeCast has been frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER60> I really want a feature that would allow me to cast from my phone to my desktop. I have a big TV plugged into my desktop but I can't cast to it from my phone, I have to remote in and manually control the desktop, it's painful.

<comment><USER61> Windows 10 added a built-in Miracast receiver, that works well with Android 6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I was surprised to hear that not many people knew that Safari does something similar (kind of) with AirPlay. A lot of videos and content (on YouTube for example) can be Airplayed when using Safari, but not when using Chrome or Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER63> Thank you for the extra and unnecessary bloat on the main browser I use for work.

<comment><USER19> Safari has gotten quite good, btw, if you're on a mac. I mentioned this to a guy on the original Chrome team, and he said he wouldn't be surprised if it were faster now.... Chrome used to be all about speed but now it's about features.

<comment><USER64> Safari dev tools kills adoption for me, specifically the styles inspector and the lack of an individual input/focus state for the property and value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> So will it work on Chrome for Android? It's not been available there yet.

<comment><USER41> It has been available for quite a while, but only for videos (they added a button in the video player).

If you want to cast a tab, while it's not the optimal solution, you can cast your whole screen using the quick settings tile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The time is coming for me to switch back to Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER66> Can't say I'm surprised. It's built into android now too, and the cast extension has been showing a lot of change recently.

</comment><comment><USER67> Yet for some reason the ability to cast HTML5 video's from my Nexus 5 has silently disappeared for months without a fix?

</comment><comment><USER68> I'm hoping that the Sonos event tomorrow includes an announcement about supporting the audio portion Google Cast.

<comment><USER69> How open is Sonos' API? I've been thinking about investing in some of their audio hardware.

<comment><USER70> There is a PulseAudio extension that writes to both Sonos speakers and Chromecast:

[https://github.com/masmu/pulseaudio- dlna](https://github.com/masmu/pulseaudio-dlna)

DLNA is some sort of standard, maybe that's what Sonos uses. I personally just use their phone app though.

<comment><USER68> That is an awesome find, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I don't know if it's related but chromecast was a bit buggy. Reboot level buggy.

<comment><USER53> I have a Roku and casting YouTube and Netflix works great.

One caveat is Netflix doesn't autoplay to the next episode after casting a video.

I really wish it had Google Play Music though.

<comment><USER72> Google Play Music support was one of the main reasons I added a Chromecast to my setup. It's a frustrating gap in the wide variety of content that Roku can handle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Can I cast a video playing on vlc or is it only from the browser?

<comment><USER74> There is a command on unix for this

[https://alan-mushi.github.io/asap/2015/03/21/vlc-stream- to-c...](https://alan-mushi.github.io/asap/2015/03/21/vlc-stream-to- chromecast.html)

vlc -vvv ./file.mp4 --sout "#chromecast{ip=192.168.1.4}"

You can find out the ip of your chromecast with the command "arp -a" and it should list Chromecast as one of the devices if its switched on and on the same wifi

Only works with VLC nightly builds 3.x.x. Also it is not very stable but gets the job done if you don't care about subtitles and scrolling through the video frequently.

THe best option is plex (works for many file formats). Second best option is videostream extension on Chrome (not on chromium). But videostream doesn't support all file formats. They keep updating though.

<comment><USER73> hmm.. Could I mirror my macbook screen?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Anyone know if this includes the iOS version?

<comment><USER41> You can't cast a browser window, but you can cast videos : [http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/google-adds- chrome...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/google-adds-chromecast- support-for-ios-chrome-app/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> I am unable to mirror Chromecast from my Mac. Basically, it mirrors the video but does not mirror the audio.

<comment><USER17> Assuming you're talking about casting from a chrome tab, I thought i had this issue, but it's a simple fix.

After you start casting, click the cast button again. You should see a volume slider that you can adjust.

<comment><USER76> It is not a question of volume. It just does not play on the TV. Here's the error I get.

[http://imgur.com/a/Hpzmb](http://imgur.com/a/Hpzmb)

<comment><USER77> I think as of this July post, you can't send audio when mirroring your _Desktop_ from a Mac: [https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/chromecast/jGSayxcIng...](https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/chromecast/jGSayxcIng4/30jGuullCwAJ)

"Grace Y. said: Hello,

Thanks for your patience. Currently, audio is not supported when casting your desktop from a Mac computer/laptop. However, casting a tab does support audio. We're always looking for ways to improve, so your feature request has been duly noted.

Best, Grace"

<comment><USER76> Thanks! I noticed some people on the forum were able to cast audio by changing "chrome://flags/" but I could not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


For The Moment, Visa And MasterCard Reopen Payments To WikiLeaks - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/07/07/for-the-moment-visa-and-mastercard-re-open-payments-to-wikileaks/ <comment><USER2> Fishy. I don't trust them at all. I wouldn't be surprised if this was done at the request of the DoJ/State Dept., and they'd agreed to provide details on donors.

It simply is not in the nature of companies like this to say, "sorry guys, our bad. No hard feelings?"

<comment><USER3> Maybe some hackers can get into Visa and Mastercard and plant something unflattering information, (like big monetary donations to al-queda with trail of evidences leading back to the CEO) so that the government has to launch an investigation and seize Visa and Mastercard's profits. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

<comment><USER4> I'm crackin' up, where did you come up with this idea?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> maybe not:

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/visa- says-...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/07/visa-says-its- still-not-processing-transactions-wikileaks/39705/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know if they did this to try and settle with Wikileaks/Datacell, but they are basically admitting they are guilty for blockading Wikileaks.

If Wikileaks and Datacell can afford it, they should continue with the lawsuit to set an example out of them. The move from today is going to score points in Wikileaks' favor in the court.

<comment><USER6> Per <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2740430>, it looks like maybe a payment processor is somehow accepting transactions that Visa/MasterCard don't want them to allow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> After all that everything that happened I am not sure it is such a great idea. If Sony can get into everyone's personal info with pressure just because some people shared a console jailbreak, imagine what can a government do to pressure some credit card companies with an international whitsleblower website.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow. They've finally decided to act like the gateway they're supposed to be and will _allow_ me to pay who I want?

That's rich.</comment>


Optimizely Surpasses Google Web Optimizer and Raises Money to Battle Omniture - <AUTHOR> http://blog.optimizely.com/optimizely-surpasses-google-website-optimizer

<comment><USER2> Wasn't there another link today about how A/B testing doesn't work?</comment>


Denormalization for Performance: Don't Blame the Relational Model - <AUTHOR> http://www.dbdebunk.com/2014/02/the-costly-denormalization-for.html <comment><USER2> From my experience, denormalization of a relational model is a special case of "caching". What you are really doing is caching data where it is most likely to be used at access time.

The overview is like this:

1) You need some operation to have low turnaround time / latency

2) So you maintain and update a cache, typically while writing to the data store.

3) Like all caches, you can either invalidate it before changing the data, slightly harming availability, or you can have it lag behind (eventual consistency).

So the article is actually wrong, you don't need to trade consistency for performance. You can increase read performance (lower latency) without losing consistency, by having a cache (denormalization) and invalidating the relevant caches BEFORE writing data (which lowers write latency, but not necessarily write throughput... typically, we don't care about write latency as much as read latency.)

<comment><USER3> Well you clearly have cache invalidation figured out. Any tips on naming things?

<comment><USER4> Similarly -- any thoughts about off-by-one?

<comment><USER5> Concurrency

Nice one. The only hard thing missing now is:

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Well implemented true RDBMSs..." exist only in the weird fantasy world of relational purists. In that perfectly normalized world you just wave your magic wand and all performance problems disappear.

<comment><USER7> I think most are pragmatic and admit you may have to do denormalise for performance (e.g. I've read this in C.J. Date's books). I interpret their point as the need for denormalisation is not a flaw with the relational model, but a flaw in its implementation. The relational model does not specify an on- disk format.

<comment><USER8> So rare to actually have to denormalise for performance today though. Query planners are miles ahead of where they were in the 80s and 90s. SSDs delivered an order of magnitude boost to performance. Rapidly expanding memories hugely increase the how much working set you can hold in memory.

No one seems to talk about this but the "Moore's law has ended" meme does not apply to most database scenarios. Database servers are normally not CPU bound: they are bound by available memory and disk bandwidth and these are both still increasing.

<comment><USER9> Antidotally, I started at a co 6 years ago where 100's of database servers were all spinning disks. It was common to have to trace down bad queries causing performance issues. Once the servers were upgraded with more ram and SSD's, the need to micromanage performance issues disappeared.

<comment><AUTHOR> The sheer fact that much of the comments are about physical storage is an excellent validation of the article's claim that data professionals don't know and understand data fundamentals and the RDM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find zero explanation of how to solve performance with a relational model.

As I understand the article, it seems to say...just because all the existing databases you have seen suck at performance when normalized doesn't mean normalization can't be fast.

<comment><USER11> There are several basic concepts you can apply to improve performance in the RDBMS and still avoid denormalization. For example:

* use as many constraints as possible (this helps the query optimizer)

* use indexes which bring better performance in your use case (e.g. bitmap join index or even index-organized tables)

* apply table/index partitioning

* use materialized views as a query result cache

<comment><USER12> Or you just avoid all that hassle and have some duplicates.

I have never seen a properly denormalized table. In practice you will get a "historically grown" system way to often and doing anything like that will break things.

The whole article seems to be quite academic from my personal experience a textbook normalized database is slow beyond belief (i did exactly that once and we had to revert it back).

<comment><USER13> Or better yet, since you don't care about your data anyways, just don't bother storing it. Infinitely scalable and always blazingly fast.

>I have never seen a properly denormalized table

Do you mean normalized? There's no such thing as "properly" denormalized, anything that is not normal is denormalized.

>The whole article seems to be quite academic from my personal experience a textbook normalized database is slow beyond belief (i did exactly that once and we had to revert it back).

I've seen lots of people say that, but then consistently found those same people don't actually know what the normalization rules are, and all they did was create a different denormalized database that happened to have poor performance for the queries they were using.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very nice article, but the claims are so far from what is practiced in the industry nowadays (see all companies working with tons of data and popping up big data solutions).

So, while it might be perfectly true it somehow misses some big point.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I think you missed its point.

I dare you to demonstrate that the "big data solutions" guarantee logical and semantic correctness the way true RDBMSs do. Without that, garbage in garbage out. But because those "solutions" are so complex that nobody understand them, including those who designed them, their results are BELIEVED to be correct, which is not the same thing as being correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have never worked at true "web scale", so my experience may or may not apply to such scenarios. I tend to make a more or less fully normalized structure, and introduce aggregated data outside of the core database. It is essentially introducting eventual consistency, for performance critical data. This data can be stored in a database or a cache layer in front of the database if it is accessed frequently enough to keep it off the disk all the time.

</comment><comment><USER16> Good luck trying to show the number of likes in twitter, instagram, face, Kardashian's tinder...

Any query that needs to calculate some result and has many rows benefit from storing pre-calculated values. With a trade-off in precision, correctness, and so on.

Might apply to your business or not.

<comment><AUTHOR> What does it have to do with normalization?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As the saying goes... Normalize till it hurts..then denormalize till it works :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you know about the hurts of denormalization? Can you even specify what they are?

<comment><USER18> Updates, inserts, and deletes become more complicated and expensive when you denormalize.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> One more thing: As these comments demonstrate, there is almost exclusive focus on performance, but nobody considers the drawbacks (cost) of denormalization. Practitioners are oblivious to them.

</comment><comment><USER19> What systems that are usable today come closest to the Platonic ideal of RDBMSs?

<comment><USER8> Today most RDBMSs have good query planners. Even recent versions of MySQL. In my experience you very often get improvements in performance by normalising (to BCNF). Most of the benefit comes from a) narrow tables reducing the physical size of the working set (hold more of it in memory) and b) narrow tables handle writes quicker (more rows per page) c) more opportunities for covering indices.

<comment><USER20> Isn't table width dictated by your data model though? And thus, in a purely normalized db schema you have no control over table width?

<comment><USER8> Normalised designs invariably have pretty narrow tables. In most BCNF schemas most tables will end up with 3 or 4 columns at most. Additionally in the situation where you have a lot of non-prime columns you always have the option of decomposing the table into multiple tables sharing the same primary key. Useful if some columns are large but rarely used.

<comment><USER13> What are you talking about? A table has as many columns as the thing it describes has attributes to be described. You can have a fully normalized database with 50 column tables in it, and there's nothing unusual or suspect about that.

<comment><USER8> No, relations describe facts, not things. Heath's theorem means you can decompose a table/relation that has n non-key attributes into n tables. This is something you have to do for BCNF.

Theoretically it's possible to imagine a normalised relation with 50 columns. In practice a table like that is unusual and suspect (frankly, even in a denormalised design).

<comment><AUTHOR> There NO relationships whatsoever between normalization and the number of attributes, which are determined by the number of properties that entities have in the real world i.e., the conceptual model.

<comment><USER8> That is not in conflict with what I said

<comment><AUTHOR> No. I just thought the clarification was important.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jon Stewart calls out congressional nerd bashing over SOPA - <AUTHOR> http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10190893-jon-stewart-dramatic-chipmunk-call-out-congressional-nerd-bashing <comment><USER2> it points to a big shift in society and the economy.

software is now a cornerstone of the world economy. modern life runs through the internet. even if you personally avoid the internet, you depend on it.

but the baby boomer generation, represented by these politicians has not understood it. they know engineers as the guys building houses, bridges, aeroplanes, rockets. but software? it is an invisible world to them. child's play. how hard can it be to build the internet vs. the hoover dam.

i don't think this will change soon nor can it be actively changed. we need to wait till this generation simply dies out and gets replaced by the ones who grew up with computers. for a larger part of society in the western hemisphere, that means birthdates in the 1970s. yes, gates, jobs were born earlier, but the majority of their _users_ were born later. they were visionaries, outliers.

and the circle will begin again, facebook generation vs. privacy defenders. and who knows whats after that...genetics?

<comment><USER3> For last couple of centuries or so, each generation grows up with unprecedented change in their lifetime.

For example, I enter elementary school, the internet started to take off and browsers were primitive. Nowadays, we can enjoy the convenience of movie streaming, fast browsers, and extraordinary rich video games(Dwarf Fortress, I am looking at you). So it doesn't make sense to me that congressmen are literal dinosaurs. Rather, I think they stop updating their model of the world and refuse to absorb any knowledge for the last couple of decade.

In any case, the situation with copyright is not new. If you look at the issue centuries ago, you would realize that we been having this debate for a long time. Today, the internet only make pirating easier than ever and bring the issue of copyright to the forefront of public consciousness.

We thought about "old versus new" business model because we lack an understanding of the history of copyright. In reality, it have much more to do about how your model of how to make money.

<comment><USER4>
      For last couple of centuries or so, each generation grows
      up with unprecedented change in their lifetime.

I'd argue that this generation's changes aren't just unprecedented, but in an entirely different category. Not just in size, but in speed and extent. The cell phone alone is the most fundamental change in society in human history; suddenly, every person on earth can communicate instantly with almost any other person, and can broadcast an image to almost the entire planet in a matter of hours. And we couldn't do that twenty years ago. We couldn't even do that five years ago.

<comment><USER5> Consider someone who died in 1955 at the age of 70. In their life they saw the introduction of: home electric providers, telephones, radio, movies, automobile, air travel (from nothing to the jet age!), nuclear energy, the polio vaccine, penicillin, color photography, frozen food, and more. There are also less known changes with deep impact: the introduction of municipal garbage service cleaned up our cities and improved health, the vertical filing system revolutionized data management, Linotype made it possible to have newspapers more than 8 pages long, the tractor, artificial fertilizer, and a mass of farm inventions opened up agriculture. Home refrigerators lets people keep fresh food longer and more cheaply than ice boxes could. Modern foods ranging from cornflakes to PEZ were invented during that time.

And you think the cell phone is more fundamental than, say, the widespread deployment of telephones in the first place? Before then, there was no way to have a voice conversation with someone more than a 100 meters away.

When the polio vaccine was invented "church bells were ringing across the country, factories were observing moments of silence, synagogues and churches were holding prayer meetings, and parents and teachers were weeping. One shopkeeper painted a sign on his window: Thank you, Dr. Salk. 'It was as if a war had ended', one observer recalled." (Wikipedia for Jonas Salk.) That vaccine still saves the lives of 100,000s of children every year even when compared to the 1800s. For that matter, before penicillin you could die because of a rose thorn accidentally scratching your mouth, as the sad story of Albert Alexander shows.

Tell me, how is the cell phone a more fundamental change than these?

<comment><USER6> You have a very valid point. I can't think of the enormous change the introduction of the home electric providers must have been. I mean, from candles to bulbs!

But then again, I think that the main difference now is the current rate of adoption of the new technologies. How many years took to build the electric system? How many years took the use of the mobile phone to become widespread? Everything moves faster and faster, and that's what is letting lots of people behind. They just can't adapt fast enough.

For example, my mother. Every time she has a new mobile phone, she asks me to teach her how to use it. I start saying, "Read the screen, think, decide and then press the buttons." Because, i tell her "if not, what will you do when even your TV has more and more menus?" Of course, she grumbles, but at least tries. And when she REALLY needs help to learn something, i help her.

And I see this pattern everywhere. Tech changes so fast now, that while a few people adapt extremely fast, and to some it takes it a little longer, to the rest, they're just tired of learning how to use new stuff, every now and then.

<comment><USER5> The complaint that people "just can't adapt fast enough" has been a near constant refrain for over a century. Read even the Wikipedia page about the "Roaring Twenties" and then tell me that the amount of change in that decade was slower than now.

Let's take some examples. Your baseline is the cell phone. The first commercial mobile phone was in 1983, so you're suggesting a time span of about 25 years. (Before 1983 it was possible to connect a two-way radio through to the phone system, but that's not the point you're trying to make.) By 1988, friends of mine had car phones. The StarTac phone came out in 1996 and marks the start of "widespread consumer adoption." But I would say that it took until 2005 where it started to supplant having a land line.

The first commercial (pre-built and for consumer use) radio receiver was in 1920. That marks the start of the "golden age of radio", which ended when TVs became more popular in the late 1950s. Surely that was as fast as the uptake of cell phones.

Semiconductor transistors were invented in 1947. "Transisterization" was so fast that crew of the Minnow had a transistor radio (in 1964) and no one was surprised by it. Transitors made entirely new categories of technology possible, so that we had a transistor-based game console (Pong-style "tennis" and "racquet-ball") in ~1975.

The first commercial (synthetic) detergents were introduced in 1933 (that's when Dreft was introduced) and "by the 1950s, soap had almost been completely replaced by branched alkylbenzenesulfonates." Not bad for 20 years! Actually it was bad, because we then found out it wasn't that biodegradable and had to find a replacement.

The neon light was first presented in 1910 and "became very popular for signage and displays in the period 1920-1940."

Prohibition lasted for 13 years in the US, and had a huge impact on daily life. That surely counts as an enormous change.

Cosmetics didn't become popular in the US until the 1910s, and the flappers of the 1920 used it with a vengeance. (WP says that previously it was too closely associated with prostitution, but the post-war trend was a reaction to the previously popular demure look, and that "[a] skewed postwar sex ratio created a new emphasis on sexual beauty, and because of the influence of Hollywood.)

All these big changes took place on the same time scale as the cell phone. How then do you measure the amount of change now, and compare it to (say) the amount of change in the 1920s? When was the last time that most people were not "tired of learning how to use new stuff"?

<comment><USER6> You are right in most of your comment. And yes, people always has been tired of having to learn how to use new stuff (I can imagine a caveman grudging about having to learn how to start a fire. LOL)

But the scale and complexity is important too. You can't compare a radio with two dials, and a smartphone with lots of screens. It's a whole new level of effort to learn how to use it. It takes more time, and it stack over previous knowledge you are supposed to have. But I know lots of elder people who don't even know how to turn on a computer. And sadly, they reject smart phones and other new things because they just gave up.

<comment><USER5> I'm presuming that you've not heard much about the earliest radios. They had two or three batteries in them ("A", "B", and at the beginning, "C" cells.) Don't mix up the batteries when you wire them in and make sure you have the right polarity as otherwise you might fry the tubes. Batteries could easily leak, so check them out for problems. If you're on a farm, you might want one powered from your car battery, which meant you could take it back to the car or a generator in order to recharge it. Then there's antenna setup. And tube replacement (since tubes go bad). Also, the early radios (excepting crystal sets) usually had three or more dials. For example, when you change the frequency you need to change the impedance of your antenna to match it. (Raise the lid or read the owner's manual to find the chart of how those correlate.)

Radios got simpler to use, in part because of the strong demand to make them simpler. They got simpler to use sometimes at the expense of more internal complexity (a starter motor for an automobile, instead of a crank) but sometimes because we just figured out an easier way to do things (Wozniak's Disk II controller is a classic hacker example) .

On the other hand, you are omitting all of the difficult, complex things we used to do, which we don't do now. Do you sew all your clothes, bedsheets, and curtains? I sure don't. Sewing isn't easy. That's a "whole old level of effort" I don't need to know. Do you regularly can or preserve your own foods? A few do, but it's easier and cheaper to buy things from the store. Until the last 1800s, many engineers and scientists learned draftsmanship (as different than art, mind you) because that was the best way to make a visual record of what you saw. Of course, the camera has nearly completely replaced that requirement, which we use to learn different things. Evolution, thermodynamics, Maxwell's equations, and more have simplified what was previously a bunch of unconnected concepts.

Our culture rides the wave of "just complex enough." If it's too complex, like early microcomputers, only a few people make the effort to learn it. It it's useful enough, then there's a lot of work put into making it simpler. When it gets simple enough, there's widespread use. So widespread use happens when something is just barely simple enough for most people to understand.

The idea you are talking about is at least 45 years old. Alvin Toffler wrote "Future Shock" in 1970 about this very topic. It popularized the phrase "information overload", which was coined in 1964. Note how someone who was 20 then would be an "elder" now.

Again I ask you, how do you judge that the rate of growth is more now than it was in the 1920s, or the 1970s? What meaningful metrics do you use, and how do you correct for you own biases of what is important? As far as I can tell, excepting the Great Depression, the amount of change and the turmoil over the amount of change has been constant for over a century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On the plus side, all the conspiracy theorists who claimed that Jon Stewart and The Daily Shows were pawns of their parent multinational media conglomerate, and thus wouldn't negatively cover SOPA, these people were wrong.

On the negative side, no one in the news media or whistleblowers and WTF- watchers like Jon Stewart knew what SOPA was until two days ago.

 _That's even scarier._

<comment><USER8> More on the plus side: Jon Stewart and his team of researchers and writers can go from knowing nothing about a topic, to absolutely _nailing_ some of the central absurdities, in less than a week.

Either comedy is easier than it looks or these guys are really good at their jobs.

<comment><USER9> _Either comedy is easier than it looks or these guys are really good at their jobs._

I vote for B.

<comment><USER10> I think its a little from both columns. The US government makes Jons job alot easier than it has any right to.. and that scares me...

<comment><USER11> The US government has been a staple of comedy for many, many years.

See: <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers> His quotes from 80 years ago still sound timely.

<comment><USER12> I dunno who this guy is, but he sure is funny:

 _This would be a great time in the world for some man to come along that knew something._

 _You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way._

 _Politics has got so expensive that it takes lots of money to even get beat with._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Everyone here (besides `jerfelix` apparently) is missing something crucial:

Jon Stewart showed 4 people using the word 'nerd'. _Three_ of them were anti- SOPA! These were the congress(wo)men that were trying to bring in experts/techies/geeks/nerds/whatever. So, I'm sorry that the techies here were insulted by that word (I wasn't!) but _most_ of the people using the word were actually fighting for _your_ side! And if you listened to them in context (instead of such a short clip) I think you would have thoroughly agreed with them.

I can excuse Jon Stewart for ignoring this important fact here because he is, after all, a comedian.

Lofgren (Anti-SOPA) [[http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&vi...](http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=674&Itemid=32)]

Issa (Anti-SOPA) [<http://issa.house.gov/>]

Watt (Pro-SOPA) [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Watt#Support_of_SOPA>]

Chaffetz (Anti-SOPA) [<http://twitter.com/jasoninthehouse>]

<comment><USER14> >Jon Stewart showed 4 people using the word 'nerd'. Three of them were anti- SOPA!

So what? Were they anti-SOPA from the beginning, or just when we started getting serious pressure applied... Even if they were instinctively anti-SOPA, would it be fine if they refer to you as something similar to carnival show (okay, that's a geek), as opposed to a concerned expert in the field? That was at least my take-away from the clip, have not watched the full episode yet.

Do they refer to bankers as Till Fiddling Cash Rapists? Decorum counts for something, and we are not a side-show.

<comment><USER15> You're currently attacking some of the representatives who actually tried to prevent/mitigate the damage of SOPA (yes, before the PR storm) over some quotes you've heard out of context. The term "experts" actually was used as well, it's just not good comedy fodder.

You shouldn't comment if you aren't at all informed on the subject.

<comment><USER14> My point was not to attack those people, that word means something different. What if they would refer to a member of the Marines as a jarhead?

My point was that The Daily Show may be slightly anti-SOPA by being liberal, but they still have a point about the fact that they:

a) don't understand what they are legislating and rely on experts b) don't appear to have enough respect to refer to these experts as anything other than nerds

I don't care if they are for or against SOPA, that was not my point.

<comment><USER13> The fact that these Anti-SOPA people had enough respect for experts to seek their advice means more to me than the words they used.

Some people really aren't offended by the term `nerd` or `geek` or even, apparently, `l0ser`.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad to see Stewart finally give this issue some coverage. I actually think the more interesting part of this bit was his montage of Daily Show clips using "copyrighted" content. It really underscores the importance of fair use and the grey area that makes copyright violations such a difficult area to police. The nerds bit was funny, but it was just the usual mockery of our elected officials he usually does.

<comment><USER17> Lawrence Lessig has argued that fair use is not serving its intended purpose: "In theory, fair use means you need no permission... But in practice, fair use functions very differently. The fuzzy lines of the law, tied to the extraordinary liability if lines are crossed, means that the effective fair use for many types of creators is slight."

So yes, it's available to people/organizations with deep pockets (like The Daily Show), but the majority of people take on considerable risk when they try to leverage it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is "geek" too cool of a word now that they have to reach for the calculated more insulting "nerd"?

(my apologies to proud nerds - but my point is that's not how they were using it)

So if people who know what they are doing with computers are the equal of geeks, do politicians think they are the dumb jocks in this high school infantile throwdown?

<comment><USER19> These politicians used the insult "nerd" because they are trying to paint SOPA protesters in a negative light and to distance themselves from responsibility for the legislation's ill effects. ("How should I have known that would happen after we passed SOPA? I'm not a nerd!")

<comment><USER18> Actually they used to have a department that informed them of all these things in a non-partisan basis. But they shut them down.

<http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/>

I'd like to think this problem will be solved when any of them over 60 now will eventually die off but unfortunately they also awarded themselves gold plated heath care.

Ignorance knows no term limits and is somehow rewarded instead.

ETA: added this if anyone wants to discuss OTA further: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3488826>

<comment><USER20> Given the right position ignorance is pure gold (eg. delivered as cheques by lobbyists), no matter if "over 60" or not.

We have a couple of 30-somethings in German government, they "don't get it" (and/or don't want to) either.

So I'd advise against only relying on the "biological solution".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought that Stewart made the congresspersons on the Nerds clip look all look like ignorant supporters of SOPA.

The last speaker, Jason Chaffetz, who said "maybe we ought to ask some nerds what this really does" was in opposition to SOPA.

Chaffetz has spoken out against SOPA since at least December 7th. See this clip: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQJrNpAcT84> , where he also uses the term "nerds", but he's saying it in opposition to SOPA. And this clip about keeping the internet open, which dates back to 12/7: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t0Pl83_Apo> .

So, yeah, Jon Stewart is funny, but he'll use clips to make his point. This sometimes leaves the viewers with an unfairly tainted view of the person in the clip.

<comment> brown9-2 I disagree. It doesn't make Chaffetz look like a SOPA supporter. It just makes him look like someone who believes in stereotypes and put-downs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was glad to see him call them out on that. I made a similar comment here on HN about a month ago[1] saying that calling on "nerds", to me, implied a lack of respect. The replies I received, however, seemed to disagree.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358472>

<comment><USER23> I think what you were seeing was that many "nerds" don't see the term as particularly derogatory and even self-describe as such, though I suspect several of the congressmen did mean to be derogatory in their use of it.

<comment><USER24> It's derogatory because they used it in a way to imply that they didn't particularly want to be associated with the group labeled "nerds." I've always preferred the term "geek." Anyone else feel the same way?

<comment><USER25> I've always thought "geeks" were Mac users (that was the crowd from which I heard the term used most, back in my Amiga days), and nerds were nerds. That said, I may call myself a nerd, you you best not be calling me a nerd. ;-)

Seriously, though, for a group of people who like to call each other out on standards of conduct, it's pretty appalling that they used a derogatory term to jokingly dismiss their utter lack of expertise in the area.

<comment><USER26> Here's how someone on urbandictionary differentiates the terms (<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=geek>):

................ Technical ...... Social

Title ............ Skills ......... Skills

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>---- </comment><comment></comment><comment>---- </comment><comment></comment><comment>

Normie ......... No ............. Yes

Geek ........... Yes ............. Yes

Nerd ............ Yes ............. No

Dork ............ No .............. No

</comment><comment><USER27> Really? "Nerds?" I think the word you're looking for is "experts."

</comment><comment><USER17> Fun fact: the SOPA page on Wikipedia was still accessible during the blackout.

<comment><USER28> It wasn't initially, they corrected that fairly early in the day though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Canadian link:

[http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPacka...](http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=102094)

<comment><USER30> Ironic and sad having to do this has become so commonplace nobody even blinks even more so considering the subject.

I refuse to use region specific links like that. Sure the two are separate channels but breaking up the world into specific regions just segregates the Internet into castes of countries. There's no reason I a Canadian shouldn't be able to click that link and view Comedy Central a website on the _world wide_ web.

<comment><USER29> All I can say is that the irony of my comment wasn't lost on me. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> When I was a kid, nerds were picked on...now Congress is feeling threatened by us and calling our class out by name. _That_ is a change as big as the technology the nerds brought about.

</comment><comment><USER32> The video linked in the article was not available here (Ireland), so for all others affected, this should be it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSc9eKOcH3w>

<comment><USER33> It's funny because it is available in Romania/Europe.

<comment><USER32> Last time I checked, Ireland was still part of Europe :-)

<comment><USER33> That's why I said Romania. Most online content is usually blocked for me. Even YouTube wouldn't allow me for a long time to create an account tied with Google Apps, as the feature wasn't available in my country.

That's why I said it is funny - usually these websites are excluding everything but the US with maybe Germany and UK added later. However in this instance I think they've got a black list - as in, allow everyone except these countries, like Ireland (allow all versus disallow all + exceptions).

<comment><USER34> Interesting: I'm in the US and the vid wouldn't play for me either. Galaktor's link does, however. Perhaps it's something else but censorship?

EDIT: mis-credited the link

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I am happy to be called a geek, nerd or expert. Thank you for the complement. :-)

<comment><USER36> In this case, however, they're laughing at you, not with you.

<comment><USER37> The joke is on them, however. "Nerds" always win in the end.

This whole SOPA thing - or variations thereof - will only be small hiccup in the grand scheme of things. The advancement of technology and its ensuing freedom will trump any current setbacks. When the older generations move on and those who have grown up with the power of technology at their fingertips are in power, who have relatively open minds and understand the freedoms that technology provides, I think we'll really see some accelerated progression in both tech and overall quality of life for everyone.

We should definitely continue to try to pave the way for future generations and reduce these setbacks, but I believe the fact still remains that freedom through technology is inevitable. It may take another couple of centuries of dealing with ignorant politicians, general closed-mindedness, and corporation unwillingness to innovate and change with the times... but we'll get there. I just wish we could live to see it.

I'm afraid future generations won't appreciate it like we would.

<comment><USER38> > The advancement of technology and its ensuing freedom will trump any current > setbacks. When the older generations move on and those who have grown up > with the power of technology at their fingertips are in power, who have > relatively open minds and understand the freedoms that technology provides, > I think we'll really see some accelerated progression in both tech and > overall quality of life for everyone.

I'd like this to happen, but this seems to me very similiar to each past generation idee fix.

First christians in Rome in first century thought when everybody will convert, there would be obviously no sins, and it will be almost haeven on earth. They were right with conversion dynamic, but wrong with the social implications.

The same for revolutionists, romantic nationalists, liberals, communists, hippies, and now it's our turn. Every time the change happened, but the consequences were not exactly as bright, as young idealists predicted.

I'd put my money on this time being exactly the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I suppose this is only fair, as I certainly use the term "politician" with the same dismissive tone of voice on occasion. And I have to admit that there are skills involved in being a successful politician that I don't much care to understand or appreciate. So henceforth I will use the term with more respect. Perhaps they will do the same someday.

</comment><comment><USER40> On the positive side, this whole anti-"nerd" attitude actually inspires people to become tech-entrepreneurs who are financially and socially powerful.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is where it's all heading <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy>

<comment><USER42> I really wish I had the karma to downvote this. Idiocracy was a funny story, but it's hardly a documentary. Every time someone brings it up seriously, I die a little bit inside.

<comment><USER43> Eh, you could say the same thing about any "cautionary tale". Unless it's not a funny story, but you know what I mean.

But I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I'm constantly torn between believing that we're really living in novel times, and the cliche that "the more things change, the more they stay the same". That is, three hundred years ago, there were _a lot_ of ignorant, illiterate, and quite possibly just plain _dumb_ people. The writings that survive from that period and that we're most exposed to today tend to be from the most educated folks, though. So it's easy to get the _sense_ that everyone in 1712 was highly intelligent, had a great grasp of the English language, also knew at least Latin, and probably French, too, and that they always had interesting, novel thoughts. Then when you look around the world today, it's easy to convince yourself that society has really deteriorated.

On the flip side, there really are a lot of ignorant and just plain _dumb_ people today, too. People who say "We're turning into _Idiocracy_!!!!" recognize this, but they perhaps don't recognize that we _used_ to be _Idiocracy_ too. Perhaps we've _always_ been _Idiocracy_?

<comment><USER44> We're _all_ DEVO!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> That's one tough to parse headline.

</comment><comment><USER46> And we are surprised by this? as the US is like the UK where a lot if not the majority of politicians and the 1% are lawyers.

Out in the real world "engineers" are considered the little chap in oily overalls (and a flat cap) who "fixes up the roller dont cha know"

Oh and that's how real engineers are seen in teh UK not some hobby php programmer cobbling together some online shoe shop by cutting and pasting</comment>


Introducing Phoebus. An implementation of Google's Pregel in Erlang - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/xslogic/phoebus

<comment><USER2> It's also worth pointing out GraphLab, an abstraction for parallel programming over graphs that is higher level than MPI and Pthreads, but lower level and more expressive than MapReduce.

Many machine learning algorithms cannot be expressed in MapReduce without sacrificing scalability, but _can be_ expressed in GraphLab and maintain scalability.

See this thread on MetaOptimize, including commentary from the GraphLab authors:

[http://metaoptimize.com/qa/questions/285/when-should-you- pre...](http://metaoptimize.com/qa/questions/285/when-should-you-prefer- graphlab-over-mapreduce-and-vice-versa)

I would be interested in a comparison between Pregel and GraphLab.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the README, "vertice" is not a word, it should be "vertex".

<comment><AUTHOR> thanx.. fixed it</comment></comment>


The Perfect 3 Column Liquid Layout - <AUTHOR> http://matthewjamestaylor.com/blog/perfect-3-column.htm

<comment><USER2> How is it we're still talking about this?

This is a solved problem, and has been for the last 5 years or so. It's not a "Holy Grail" any more.

<comment><USER3> hear hear.

<comment><USER4> What does your comment accomplish that an upmod wouldn't have?

<comment><USER3> Did not want to be anonymous in agreement, but felt strongly enough that I wanted to comment and yet did not have time when commenting to go into reasoning (only had a few moments before I had to go elsewhere). Hence, the basic agreement. Was going to elaborate more later (i.e. now) but now don't think it's needed as points have been made by others since.

...also, in the same vein one can ask what your comment accomplishes that a downmod would't have? :)

<comment><USER4> I'd feel uneasy agreeing with your motives.

It'd be a mess if not only a lot of people left purely opiniative (?) comments because they don't have time to elaborate but this was also generally deemed good behavior.

If you were about to post insightful commentary later couldn't it wait (in fact it did wait since your in-the-meantime comment was clearly no substitute)? Especially since others have expressed what you would have.

" _...also, in the same vein one can ask what your comment accomplishes that a downmod would't have? :)_ "

I find it surprising that you'd ask that just after clarifying your motives. Would you have posted that answer if I had just downmodded you?...

<comment><USER3> I agree. Your points are well made. Sorry. Lesson learned (next time won't be so hasty). I'll make efforts to improve signal/noise and quality/quantity ratios :)

Lastly, if you/anyone just downmoded the comment I wouldn't know who/why so would not have answered like that. Instead I would have discussed points/issues/reasons, as I generally try to do in other posts I make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Everyone appears to want CSS to do this. It seems to be hard.

Does it strike anyone else that this is a failing of CSS as a technology?

<comment><USER6> It's not so much as failing of CSS as a technology as it is an indication that CSS is not the language designers want it to be.

What really sucks is that it's actually pretty close to that language. Everything's fine until you hit the cross-browser compability issues or realize it's missing a few primitives (like the ability to easily create columns). Then you want to tear your hair out. And/or resort to hacks.

<comment><USER7> I dunno, CSS doesn't really provide much to help you scale a layout. Scaling using percentage widths is about as rudimentary as it gets.

<comment><USER4> What about ems?

<comment><USER7> When I say "percentage based scaling", I mean "simply resizing elements to fill the screen". That's what's rudimentary.

A nice scaling toolkit would let you intelligently use all that width. You might be able to change how things flow, change how much content shows in various elements, etc, etc. Making wider columns usually sucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why don't we just rename the table tag "grid" and just be honest about what it is. That way, it can either be a layout grid, or a tabular data grid.

</comment><comment><USER9> _or_ you could just use tables, which are compatible with more browsers, and do something more useful with the time you save.

<comment><USER3> The whole reason the movement away from tables began is because complex layouts (nested tables) do not render correctly in different browsers and it does not separate style from content like CSS does.

Tables also makes it harder for crawlers/interpreters to understand the page as content may not be hierarchically correct due to layout issues, etc.

<comment><USER10> If you use tables, you don't have to avoid CSS. They compliment each other. I agree that nested tables are ugly, but they're also completely necessary now because of CSS. Using tables to render your main multi-column layout wouldn't require any nesting. Also, tables are more likely to render in different browsers (including mobile browsers) than a complex CSS layout.

Given the number of CSS hacks and extra HTML tags in exactly the right order that is necessary for most column layouts the end result is almost always less complex with a table.

<comment><USER3> Tables should really be used for data that requires it e.g. number sets etc., and not for layout.

True, using tables for layout in some sites is much simpler than CSS but people who do that usually do so today because they do not know how to do it in CSS properly.

Either way, all is fine, until they start using tables within said layouts (e.g. for number sets or even more mutli-columning in subsections) and things start to get problematic. This is especially evident when they try to use the content in various sites or try to change formatting for cross-browser related issues (often best solved by having base style sheets for various browsers).

Just my experience and thoughts, ultimately use whatever is best for you, and you are comfortable with :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Whenever someone posts one of those "How to you like my app" posts, and I have to scroll horizontally, I mention it. And I usually get shouted down. They tell me to "graduate" from 800 x 600.

My argument has never been that any resolution is any better than any other. It's been that your app should work _no matter what_ resolution your visitor arrives at.

This article is one excellent solution to that problem.

<comment><USER11> The counter-argument to liquid-layouts is the fact that you need to specify a min-width which is not supported in all browsers (easy fix for jscript sure, but certainly not hack-free).

So for individuals like myself, who run at 1920x1200, legibility is a significant issue unless I manually resize my browser window which is about as much of a pain in the ass as scrolling horizontally.

Sadly, there is no perfect solution when designing for the web. Horses for courses.

<comment><USER12> At that resolution, you'd be somewhat insane to maximize your browser window. You should be using software that divides your screen into regions.

<comment><USER11> In OSX, the layering nature of windows to make drag-n-drop more usable sometimes becomes counter-productive.

There are times when I find I just want to focus on a single item and block everything else out, which forces me to either maximize Safari, or close down all my applications.

I don't care for Spaces too much right now, it's kind of buggy with Photoshop/Illustrator.

<comment><USER13> If you haven't already, you might want to give Think a try. It runs on OS X and might be exactly what you're looking for.

<http://freeverse.com/apps/app/?id=7013>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like liquid layouts as I like things that make good use of the real estate they have.

Liquid layouts also tend to print more correctly i.e. without bits chopped-off or missing.

</comment><comment><USER14> Isn't this easy to do with tables?

</comment><comment><USER15> Great work...I'll bookmark for future reference!</comment>


Ask HN: How can I monetize the chrome extension I made? - <AUTHOR>

I created a Chrome extension called Facebook GIF Button, it alows people to easily post GIF replies in comments inside Facebook.
Thanks to some luck it boomed pretty quickly reaching 10k users in about 4 days.
I'd like to hear some suggestions on how to monetize my extension (I'm going through really hard times in terms of money).
I want to do this in such a way I don't disrupt the experience my users know and love. I once accepted an offer from some ad injection company and I am still regretting it.
Please help me out! Cheers <comment><USER2> There a lots of Pages in FB that attract many visitors. And those only make money for FB.

Would be interesting to offer those Pages an option (platform) for making money as well. Such 'third party' Ad platform would have limitations, but images and gifs might be a way to go ?

</comment><comment><USER2> A few weeks ago there was a discussion that might give some leads: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9623791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9623791)

</comment><comment><USER2> How about inserting an extra (final ?) frame with the logo of a company. Maybe share the revenues with the people using your service. I am not very familiar with FB: could there be a link as well with the gif ?</comment>


Looking for developers for equity stake in start up - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to connect with a developer(s) that will be willing to join my start up. I'm the entrepreneur / business type and that doesn't know much about coding hence I'm on here trying to connect with anyone who is interested. The focus is centered around creating a mobile based application that resembles a yelp and open table all in one. there will be a web interface and mobile interface.<p>if your interested, please let me know <comment><USER2> As I have mentioned elsewhere on HN, one of the purposes behind our new startup is to help entrepreneurs like you find great co-founders: we ensure that you only get connected with the most qualified candidates for your purposes, immediately. This means that you don't have to spend weeks filtering through hundreds of resumes from people who never even read your job description. And, you don't waste time interviewing totally useless candidates who shamelessly over-marketed themselves.

We're not quite ready yet, but if you sign up you can give it a shot! venturocket.com

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm fully booked, but I am quite interested in the customer development steps you've taken to validate your hypotheses. Also interested in the changes you've made from you original idea based on what you've learned.</comment>


Show HN: Ceilfire.com – Online HTML5 Game Maker - <AUTHOR> http://ceilfire.com <comment><USER2> Pretty cool prototype. Did you take a look at [https://www.goocreate.com](https://www.goocreate.com)? Or [https://playcanvas.com/](https://playcanvas.com/)? Or [http://vizor.io/](http://vizor.io/)? What was your inspiration?

I help develop Goo Create so it is really cool to see other people making cool stuff for the web :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Some thoughts:

1\. I think it will be better if in the Terms of Use [1] is also provided in English.

2\. I read the ToS because I'm interested on who owns the IP of the game or assets made in this platform

3\. By "remaking" current games, does that mean everyone is forced to "open- source" their "source codes"?

[1]: [https://ceilfire.com/terms-of-use](https://ceilfire.com/terms-of-use) (currently in German?)

<comment><USER4> They own the IP, which is why they're able to share assets across users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I suggest adding a category for mobile friendly games and also showing little icons next to each game to show if they work on PC, mobile or both.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very good suggestion. At the moment ceilfire is not optimized for mobile, but it's definitely on the TODO list. Thanks for trying out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems to have trouble doing anything over https (the site loads, but the games don't due to CORS issues). Normally I have the HTTPS Everywhere extension enabled, figured out I needed to disable it to get the games to load.

<comment><AUTHOR> The assets are stored on amazon S3 and I added CORS entries, but somehow there are still some issues. Thanks for testing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very cool, but the experience was ruined when I was testing a game I made and was interrupted by a lightbox saying "Seems like you have done a nice game! If you want to continue making awesome games and saving them, you should register! It only takes 10 seconds." I get the reasoning for this, but I'd suggest a lighter touch for prompting users to sign up -- namely one that doesn't interrupt their gameplay. The lightbox is a great way to turn people _away from_ your product.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ohh Man .. it looks really cool .. makes the simple game making so easy .. no more complex javascripts anymore.. all is abstracted.. good job

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this is the aim. Still a long way to go. But first steps are already done!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hey wow, this is pretty impressive. Good job! :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Can't load a flappy bird on new iPhone? Weird.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, thanks for trying out! Mobile is definetly on my TODO list, but at the moment it only works for Desktop machines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting you made this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi ghosh, yes it's made by me. But still in the early stage.

Technology used: NodeJS/MongoDB on the backend, vanilla JS on the front-end + PhaserJS as a game engine.</comment></comment>